By Selwyn Duke

If you believe "evolutionary theorist" Oliver Curry, man will divide into two distinct species after approximately another 100,000 years.

According to Niall Firth, who wrote a piece on the matter, we will divide into ". . . an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of
dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures . . . ."

Presumably, the latter will be a rock-solid constituency for the Democrats.

It’s easy to be flippant because Curry’s thesis is comical.  You’ll have to read the piece to get the whole idea, but he envisions the development of "genetic haves and have-nots" after about 1000 years in the future.  Now, assuming that man survives and becomes as technologically advanced as he foresees, why should we think that genetic engineering would allow for genetic have-nots? 

You may wonder why I’m wasting e-ink on this story, but its emblematic of a serious problem, one that’s partially evidenced by Firth’s closing paragraph.  After correctly saying that the prediction may strike a chord with those who have read H.G. Wells’ classic The Time Machine, he then wrote,

"In the 1895 book, the human race has evolved into two distinct species,
the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi and the frightening,
animalistic Morlock who are destined to work underground to keep the
Eloi happy."

Obviously, Firth has neither read the book nor done his homework.  First, the Eloi were neither wealthy nor intelligent; rather, they were uneducated, childlike simpletons.  Second, the Morlocks didn’t try to keep the Eloi happy; they were raising them like cattle so they could ultimately slaughter and eat them.

The characterization of a work of fiction’s plot is a trivial matter, as is a dubious and puerile prediction about the distant future.  Quite important, however, is today’s marriage between bad science and bad journalism.  As I pointed out in my article She’s Blinding Me with Science, bad, fringe science is more likely to be disseminated than good science.  Why?  Here’s what I wrote in said piece,

But
then there’s the matter of fringe science.  Fringe science appeals to
self-serving journalists, as well as self-serving scientists, because
its iconoclastic nature garners great attention, enabling second-rate
researchers to get published and intellectually vacuous journalists to
grab headlines. . . . it’s
far more likely that the media will tell us about bad science than good
science, which means that it’s far more likely that the American people
will know about bad science than good science.  Think about it: every
researcher in the field of exercise physiology could be saying that men
will remain pre-eminent in the athletic arena, while one lone
journalist claims the opposite.  This presents you with a choice of two
possible headlines: “Men Will Continue to Surpass Women in Sports” or,
“Women Will Overtake Men in Sports.”  Now, which research do you think
will animate the pen of the average scribe?

Thus, people end up developing a skewed view of reality.  And Niall Firth’s piece is a perfect example.  We have a scientist who probably craved attention and wanted to get published and a journalist who wanted to create an irresistible headline.  And, hey, it worked.  The Drudge Report even ran this "news" as its top story.

Actually, though, maybe I’m being rash.  Perhaps the human race will ultimately divide into two distinct species.  There will be people with common sense.

And then there will be stupid, opportunistic journalists and scientists. 

I expect this to start happening about 100o years hence. 

Oh, wait, never mind about that.  I have to go.  There’s a Morlock at my door with a tape recorder, pen and pad of paper.